"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...

"rick etter" wrote in message
link.net...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in
message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article et, rick
etter
at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar

wrote:

in article et,
rick
etter
at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM:

Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific.
Actions
that are taken by agressors, not neutrals.

That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is
attacked by
another nation was at war with them prior to the attack?

Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and
other
trade
with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37...
and
the
US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the
Pacific
Fleet
to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan
wanted to
secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war
drum
about
protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct
threats
and the
embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on
Pearl
Harbour and Clarke.

Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war
circumstances.
=======================
No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts.

I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks
another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is
thereby
deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked.
========================
Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the case.
Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If
Canada
had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion

BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING
=================================
You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets,
delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are
considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions.

Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions."
====================
Always has been fool. I'm trying to get you into words you might
understand, for a change...


More weasel-words.
=================
No, they are not.


Can I have your full list of exactly which types of actions constitute
"interfering" because I think it's going to reveal that every single
nation in the world is at war. Depressing news!
=======================
Again, your strawmen have nothing, fool. try reading for comprehension.



And, according to you, I guess George W Bush is lying again, because
before he left Canada after his little visit earlier this week, and he
said that our two nations were best of friends. But the US is (according
to you) currently taking war against Canada by restricting trade of
softwood lumber and preventing the sale of Canadian beef.
====================
Nope. Never said that, never implied that. YOU are too stupid to read
english for comprehension. Who is Canada at war with, and that we are
supplying?



Either George W is lying, or you have a strange definition of war.
================
No, you have no idea of the term...


Too bad you are so ignorant and stupid as to not understand, or are just
too full of hate to want to understand.

What have I said that even approximates hate?
=================
ROTFLMAO Everything you've written, fool.



That is the question at hand with your bizarre theory.
==================
It's not theory you ignorant dolt. If I were you i'd demand an
immediate refund from whatever scgools you went to. They obviously
failed you.

Mm. Well, they certainly never prepare me for illogic of such a grand
scale as you have managed here.
====================
Nope, the logic is perfect, you are the failed example of hate and
ignorance...




Does New Zealand simply announce that Canada is interfering, and thus
Canada
is deemed to be at war? What constitutes interference...trade
restrictions...refusing to participate in a summit on sheep...?

Canada and the US intefere with each other in a thousand different
ways...the US interferes with just about every nation on the planet.
Does
that mean they are all at war?!? This is totally nonsensical.
====================
Yes, your idiocy is nonsense. The problem with *your* bogus
analogies(you really have a hard time with them don't you fool) is that
the discussion at hand is the country you are intervering with is already
at war, and you are taking actions that side with their foes, while
trying to declare neutrality. It doesn't work that way, and you are
morally and legally at war with that country when you help the foes, or
punish that country. Man, you really are just too stupid for this,
aren't you?

That's one possibility.
=====================
Exactly the right possibility.

"rick etter" wrote in message
link.net...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...

"rick etter" wrote in message
link.net...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in
message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article et, rick
etter
at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar

wrote:

in article et,
rick
etter
at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM:

Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific.
Actions
that are taken by agressors, not neutrals.

That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is
attacked by
another nation was at war with them prior to the attack?

Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and
other
trade
with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since
'37... and
the
US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the
Pacific
Fleet
to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan
wanted to
secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war
drum
about
protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct
threats
and the
embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on
Pearl
Harbour and Clarke.

Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war
circumstances.
=======================
No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts.

I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks
another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is
thereby
deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were
attacked.
========================
Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the
case.
Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If
Canada
had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion

BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING
=================================
You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets,
delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are
considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions.

Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions."
====================
Always has been fool. I'm trying to get you into words you might
understand, for a change...

So what is the argument about?

You acknowledge that there is a difference between "war" and your
self-described "war-like actions."

When you are at war, you are at war. Everyone knows what this means - you
are shooting at them and they are shooting at you.

That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious.

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...

"rick etter" wrote in message
link.net...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...

"rick etter" wrote in message
link.net...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in
message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article et, rick
etter
at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar

wrote:

in article et,
rick
etter
at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM:

Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the
Pacific.
Actions
that are taken by agressors, not neutrals.

That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is
attacked by
another nation was at war with them prior to the attack?

Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and
other
trade
with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since
'37... and
the
US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the
Pacific
Fleet
to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan
wanted to
secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the
war drum
about
protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct
threats
and the
embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on
Pearl
Harbour and Clarke.

Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war
circumstances.
=======================
No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts.

I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks
another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is
thereby
deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were
attacked.
========================
Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the
case.
Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If
Canada
had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion

BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING
=================================
You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets,
delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are
considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions.

Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions."
====================
Always has been fool. I'm trying to get you into words you might
understand, for a change...

So what is the argument about?

You acknowledge that there is a difference between "war" and your
self-described "war-like actions."

When you are at war, you are at war. Everyone knows what this means - you
are shooting at them and they are shooting at you.
=============================
Keep telling yourself that fool. Try to get an education someday...



That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious.
================
No, there still put a country morally and legally at war....

in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 12/2/04 10:50 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...

"rick etter" wrote in message
link.net...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...

"rick etter" wrote in message
link.net...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in
message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article et, rick
etter
at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar

wrote:

in article et,
rick
etter
at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM:

Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the
Pacific.
Actions
that are taken by agressors, not neutrals.

That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is
attacked by
another nation was at war with them prior to the attack?

Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and
other
trade
with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since
'37... and
the
US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the
Pacific
Fleet
to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan
wanted to
secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the
war drum
about
protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct
threats
and the
embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on
Pearl
Harbour and Clarke.

Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war
circumstances.
=======================
No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts.

I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks
another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is
thereby
deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were
attacked.
========================
Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the
case.
Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If
Canada
had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion

BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING
=================================
You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets,
delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are
considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions.

Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions."
====================
Always has been fool. I'm trying to get you into words you might
understand, for a change...

So what is the argument about?

You acknowledge that there is a difference between "war" and your
self-described "war-like actions."

When you are at war, you are at war. Everyone knows what this means - you
are shooting at them and they are shooting at you.
=============================
Keep telling yourself that fool. Try to get an education someday...

Can you please rephrase that in simple terms? I'm having a hard time keeping
up. I'm sure you are used to people being in awe of your brilliance.
Frankly, I don't know how (or if) you have remained sane, given your
elevated self-image.

That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious.
================
No, there still put a country morally and legally at war....

You've really outdone yourself this time.

Traducción, por favor?

The difference quite simply, is being "at war" is not the same as being
"morally at war" or "legally at war" and everyone knows the difference
because in the case of the former, people get shot.

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
news:BDD551A5.1305D%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...


snippage...



So what is the argument about?

You acknowledge that there is a difference between "war" and your
self-described "war-like actions."

When you are at war, you are at war. Everyone knows what this means -
you
are shooting at them and they are shooting at you.
=============================
Keep telling yourself that fool. Try to get an education someday...

Can you please rephrase that in simple terms? I'm having a hard time
keeping
up. I'm sure you are used to people being in awe of your brilliance.
Frankly, I don't know how (or if) you have remained sane, given your
elevated self-image.
=================
I have no elevated self image, I just know the ignorance that you are
spewing.... Try again little boy...



That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being
obvious.
================
No, there still put a country morally and legally at war....

You've really outdone yourself this time.

Traducción, por favor?

The difference quite simply, is being "at war" is not the same as being
"morally at war" or "legally at war" and everyone knows the difference
because in the case of the former, people get shot.
=======================
And people die for those others reason and actions too you ignorant dolt.
Are you really this stupid, or just this big a troll? Again, you don't have
to shoot people to kill them, or to be at war....

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...


snippage....

========================
No, but since you cannot read for comprehension, maybe you just don't
understand english, eh?

Yawn.
================
typical level of the discussions you have....


snippage....

in article , rick etter at
wrote on 12/3/04 6:43 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...


snippage....

========================
No, but since you cannot read for comprehension, maybe you just don't
understand english, eh?

Yawn.
================
typical level of the discussions you have....

It's actually pretty rare that someone bores me to the extent that you have
managed.

Oh, wait, let me formulate it in the style that you seem to most appreciate:

It's actually pretty rare that someone bores me to the extent that you have
managed, fool.

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
news:BDD6B772.13107%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article , rick etter
at
wrote on 12/3/04 6:43 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...


snippage....

========================
No, but since you cannot read for comprehension, maybe you just don't
understand english, eh?

Yawn.
================
typical level of the discussions you have....

It's actually pretty rare that someone bores me to the extent that you
have
managed.

Oh, wait, let me formulate it in the style that you seem to most
appreciate:

It's actually pretty rare that someone bores me to the extent that you
have
managed, fool.
============================
Actually, anybody that can put 2 sentences together bores you because
they're over your head right away. If you weren't so stupid maybe you
could hang in there longer.

Subject: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!
__________==___
From: Warren
Date: 11/28/04 6:33 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , Paddlec1
wrote:

No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet
for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live.

It's your "doom and gloom". It belongs to you and the rest of the neocon
cheeleaders for death. Don't blame the messenger.

Have fun paying down that seven and a half trillion dollar debt...

Not a problem, unless you live in Germany, France, Russia, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, etc. Ah, that must be your problem.

Let's see, Germany, France, Russia, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are in
trouble because of the 8 trillion $ US debt.
Nice fantasy you have going there Warren.

Dennis

From: Wilko

snip
Also, with the ever increasing fall of the dollar, inflation is catching
up with the gross overspending of your government. You can't spend what
you don't have, and taking out loans to still spend more than what you
have means that eventually there will be someone knocking on your door
asking that money back. As things stand, the U.S. isn't going to be able
to pay back that debt as it is right now, and it's only growing bigger.
snip

Absolutely correct. The 8 trillion $ debt (was 7 1/2 trillion, but they raised
the debt cieling since this conversation was started) cannot be repaid with
today's dollar. Look for the $ to be devalued even more. Anyone who owns US $
(savings), gets paid in $ or spends $ will be affected. Many Americans will
suffer greatly for this debacle, and some will get even wealthier.

Dennis